A planning guide for fattening cattle

by D Bawden
A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Science in Agricultural Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by D Bawden (1959)
Abstract:
This thesis is presented in the form of a guide which dryland wheat farmers may use in planning a
supplementary cattle fattening enterprise.
Because of the nature of the subject, this guide cannot be a precise step-by-step process, which, if
followed, will bring about an exact result.
It is, rather, a loose, somewhat pliable framework which can be used in an effort to maximize specific
results. The underlying assumption is that, regardless of the project, one must follow some semblance
of order or little good will be derived.
A study of this type is timely for three reasons: (1) the dryland wheat farmer is searching for a
profitable use of his surplus labor during the winter months; (2) he already possesses many of the
facilities required in cattle feeding; and (3) he has had little or no experience in this type of operation.
For the first two reasons, it is predicted that many wheat farmers will begin a winter cattle fattening
program. For the last reason, a guide is needed to assist the inexperienced feeder in his venture.
On the following pages the problem is first discussed, analyzed and limited. A general discussion
follows on the aspects and processes involved in pre-budget planning. Finally, the guide is formulated,
and a hypothetical feeding operation is created to explain its use.
Because this is a subjective, presupposing study, it has no definite conclusion. Yet, after reading it, one
can hardly visualize a profitable unplanned feeding operation. Possibly the most significant impression
is that profit cannot be realized consistently without planning, and this thesis merely presents a guide
by which this planning may be accomplished. 
 A PLANNING GUIDE FOR FATTENING CATTLE ON DRYLAND
WHEAT FARMS IN THE TRIANGLE AREA OF MONTANA

An Analysis of the Procedure for Dryland Wheat Farmers to

Follow in Determining the Profitableness of Fattening Cattle
During the Winter Months as a Supplementary Enterprise.

by

D. LEE BAWDEN

A THESIS

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

in

partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Science in Agricultural Economics

at
• -I > I I- , I-"'
MontanaxState College

Approved:

Chairman, ExaminingOGdmmittee

Dean Gradt ie/Division

Bozeman, Montana
May, 1959
 Hilyj
fb
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS............................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES . . ................................................. ill
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................... iv
ABSTRACT ......................................................... v

PART I. INTRODUCTION............................................ I
A. The P r o b l e m .............................................. I

CT OJ NJ
B. Objectives
C. Major Limitations . . . .
D. Procedure ...............

XO CD -J -J
PART II. CHARACTERISTICS OF AREA
A. Climate and Topography .
B. Type of Farming ........
C. Type of Feeding ........

PART III. PRE-BUDGETP L A N N I N G ................................... 13

A. The Planning P r o c e s s .................................... 13
B. The Hypothetical F a r m .................................... 15
C. Choices to Be M a d e ...................................... 15
1. Type of F e e d i n g .................................... 16
2. Age of C a t t l e ...................................... 16
3. Sex of C a t t l e ...................................... 17
4. Quality of C a t t l e .................................. 18
5. Weight of C a t t l e .................................... 19
6. Ingredients of the R a t i o n ......................... 20
7. Amount of Ration to F e e d ........................... 31
8. When to Begin F e e d i n g .............................. 39
9. Length of Feeding P e r i o d ........................... 39
10. Number to F e e d ...................................... 46
11. Equipment Required .................................. 47

PART IV. BUDGET FOR AFEEDING O P E R A T I O N ........................ 55

A. Budget Decisions ........................................ 55
B. The B u d g e t .............................................. 56

PART V. C O N C L U S I O N .............................................. 59

A P P E N D I X ......................................................... 61
A. Rate of Gain Per A n i m a l .................................. 62
B. Variable Feeding Cost PerA n i m a l ........................ 63
C. Cost of Equipment andF a c i l i t i e s ........................ 64
D. Depreciation S c h e d u l e ....................... 66

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................... 67

136418
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES .... TITLE _ PAGE

1 Map of Montana Illustrating the Triangle Area . . . . . . 4

2 Scale of Prices of Barley and Oats and Their Relative .

Values for Fattening Beef Cattle . . . . , ............. 22

3 An Example of the Daily Rate of Gain Per Animal . . . . . 40

4 An Example of the Daily Variable Feeding Cost

Per Animal ................... . • • « .• • • • ? • 41

5 Example No. I of the Optimum Length of Feeding Period . . 42

6 Example No. 2 of the Optimum Length of Feeding Period . . 43

7 Example No. 3 of the Optimum Length of Feeding Period . . 45

8 Feedlot Design for Hypothetical Feeding Operation . . . . 53

ii
 LIST OF TABLES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

I TOTAL NON-IRRIGATED ACRES HARVESTED IN THE TRIANGLE

AREA .................................... .. ........... . . . 8

II TYPE OF CATTLE FED IN THE TRIANGLE AREA, 1955-1956 . . . . 1 1

III ' RECOMMENDED DAILY NUTRIENT ALLOWANCES FOR FATTENING

YEARLING C A T T L E ........ .. ........... 33

IV AVERAGE COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS OF.FEEDS . . 33

V ESTIMATED AMOUNTS OF RATION INGREDIENTS TO BE FED . . . . 35

ill
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In many instances a:'thesis at th6 Masters Degree, level is of small

benefit to the reader but of great benefit to the author. This is es­
pecially true of this thesis, for it has been a tremendous help to me—
both in increased knowledge of research methods and added inspiration
for this type of work.

Because it has been a learning experience, I am deeply indebted

to several individuals. My name appears on the cover, and I assume
full responsibility for the information contained herein. However,
this thesis would never have been written had I not been exposed to
the enthusiasm, intellectual stimulation, and inspiration generated by
the entire Agricultural Economics Department at Montana State College.

A very special debt of gratitude is owed to Dr. Edward Ward,

without whose encouragement I would never have entered graduate work,
and Drs. Clarence Jensen and Chester Baker for the patience and assist­
ance they extended to me during the writing of this paper. Warm thanks
are also extended to Drs. D, C. Myrick, Roy E. Huffman, Gscar 0. Thomas,
and David Blackmore, and Professors Bill Ewasiuk and Dean Vaughn for
their encouragement and constructive criticism.

iv
 ABSTRACT

This thesis is presented in the form of ,a guide which dryland wheat

farmers may use in planning a supplementary cattle fattening enterprise.
,Because of the nature of the subject, this guide cannot be a precise step-
by-step process, which, if followed, will bring about an exact result.
.It is, rather, a loose, somewhat pliable framework which can be used in
an effort to maximize specific results. The underlying assumption is
that, regardless of the project, one must follow some semblance of order
or little good will be derived.

A study of this type is timely for three reasons: (I) the dryland
wheat farmer is searching for a profitable use of his surplus labor
during the winter months; (2) he already possesses many of the facili­
ties required in cattle feeding; and (3) he has had little or no ex­
perience in this type of operation* For the first two reasons, it is
predicted that many wheat farmers will begin a winter cattle fattening
program. For the last reason, a guide is needed to assist the inex­
perienced feeder in his venture.

Gn the following pages the problem is first discussed, analyzed

and limited. A general discussion follows on the aspects and processes
involved in pre-budget planning. Finally, the guide is formulated, and
a hypothetical feeding operation is created to explain its use.

Because this is a subjective, presupposing study, it has no defi­

nite conclusion. Yet, after reading it, one can hardly visualize .a
profitable unplanned feeding operation. Possibly the most significant •
impression is that profit cannot be realized consistently without
planning, and this thesis merely presents a guide by which this planning
may be accomplished.

v
 PART I

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

The Montana dryland wheat farmer is confronted with a problem in

that there are few enterprise alternatives which he may use to supple­

ment his income. If he is to receive a supported price for his wheat,

he must observe the acreage allotments imposed upon him by the Federal

government; thus approximately one third of his land must be diverted

to the production of something other than wheat. Montana farmers

usually use this land to raise barley. As a consequence, he is faced

With the problem of disposing of this barley in the most profitable

manner.

In addition, many dryland wheat farmers have little to occupy

their time during the winter months except to repair their machinery.

Because of high farm income in the past years, many farmers have

placed a higher value on this.leisure time than on the profits they

could receive from an additional enterprise which would require some of

their labor. However, declining farm income in current years suggests

that such attitudes may change. It is probable that many will favor

spending the winter months operating a supplementary enterprise rather

than devoting this time to leisure.

Because of these two existing surpluses— namely, barley and labor-

it has been suggested that dryland wheat farmers may be able to carry

on a cattle fattening program during the winter months that will

 — 2 —

profitably utilize these surpluses. But is this a sound suggestion?

Is it actually profitable to carry on a cattle fattening operation as

a supplemental enterprise? How can this be determined?

Ideally, a study could be made that would determine exactly what

profit, if any, every farmer could make with this supplemental enter­

prise. However, as is usually the case, the ideal is unattainable.

Every farmer^ is in a different situation in regard to costs, resources,

market conditions, knowledge, location, and size of operation. Wheat

producers in dryland areas, unaccustomed and ill prepared to weigh

alternatives adequately, need a guide to assist them in the deter­

mination of the profitableness of fattening cattle under the conditions

peculiar to each type of Operation.

Objectives,

This thesis will attempt to provide a guide for dryland wheat

.farmers to follow in determining, with some degree of accuracy, the

profitableness of fattening cattle during the winter months as a sup­

plementary enterprise. This guide will consist of (l) an elaboration

of the areas in which choices must be made by the farmer prior to the

feeding operation, and (2) a budget outline in which the farmer may

introduce his own costs to determine the marketing margin needed for ■

a profitable operation. .
 - 3 -

Major Limitations

Because of the time limitation on this study, several major as­

sumptions shall be made before attacking the aforementioned objectives

to facilitate a more thorough investigation of a particular phase of

the problem. It is hoped that, within these limitations, the study will

retain breadth enough to remain practical for a majority of the farmers

to whom the overall problem applies.

First, this study will pertain only to farmers having no irrigated

land. This restriction is imposed because of the differences between

dryland and irrigated farm organizations.

Second, the results of this thesis will be most appropriate to

dryland wheat farmers in the Triangle Area of Montana-^ (see Figure I),

Due to the limitation of available time and money, the study of dryland

cattle fattening operations was made only in this area. This section

of Montana was chosen because it is Onb of the major wheat producing

areas of the state, and because its environmental conditions are similar

to those in a large part of the Northern Great Plains. It is hoped

that some of the results of this thesis may be applicable to dryland

wheat farms in the Northern Great Plains.

Third, because it is the most common practice, only fattening

cattle for slaughter purposes will be considered, as opposed to merely

a warm-up feeding operation. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that these

This area includes most of Choutedii, Fergus, Hill, Judith Basin,'

Liberty, Teton, and Toole Counties.'
 MONTANA

TOOLE HILL

C H O U T E A U

T E T O N

UDI TH
SASfNj

Figure I. Map of Montana Illustrating the Triangle Area

 - 5 -

cattle will be on full f e e d , i n s t e a d of a limited ration ^ so they

may reach a desirable slaughter finish.

Fourth, the feeding "period shall be limited from approximately

September I to April I because this is the period when most dryland

wheat farmers have the largest surplus of labor.

Procedure

This study will be organized in the same manner in which a far­

mer may proceed to predict intelligently whether or not a cattle

fattening program would be a profitable venture for him to undertake.

First, several major areas will be established within which the

prospective feeder must make a choice of alternatives. Then a few

feasible alternatives within each of these decision-making areas will

be proposed, and a choice of one of the alternatives, within each area

will be made. However, these choices must be made in reference to a

particular farm organization; therefore, a hypothetical farm will be

described. No claim is made that, this farm will be typical of the

majority of farms in the Triangle Area, but it will resemble some of

those visited while interviewing feeders in this area.

Using the chosen alternatives, a budget will be established which

will include all of the expense and receipt items relevant to this

I/ Full feed means that the cattle will be fed a ration consisting of
a large percentage of concentrates to achieve the maximum rate of
gain.

2/ Limited ration means that the cattle are fed less concentrates than
they require to achieve the maximum rate of gain throughout the en­
tire feeding period.

\
 — 6 —

supplementary enterprise. Then cost and revenue figures will be in­

troduced into the budget to predict the profitability of fattening

cattle on this hypothetical farm. The choice of alternatives and

the cost and revenue figures will be based upon information from in­

terviews with operators of cattle fattening enterprises in thei Tri­

angle Area, data obtained from secondary material available to the

author, or in some cases, by assumption.

It must be emphasized that only the method of this prediction

process should be used by a prospective feeder. The chosen alter­

natives and the cost and revenue figures apply only to the hypo­

thetical farm, and, in some cases, they may not even be the wisest ■

choices for this type of organization because some are established only

by assumption. Thus, the primary value of using the hypothetical farm

in this study is to demonstrate the use of the proposed guide, and it

is the responsibility of the prospective feeder to make the above

decisions with reference to his own farm organization.

J--:
 PART II

CHARACTERISTICS OF AREA

The appropriate type of cattle feeding operation is, to a large

extent, influenced by the general environmental conditions within which

it e x i s t s . A very brief discussion of these influencing factors,

plus a general description of the type of feeding in the Triangle

Area, will be presented below. From this, the reader will better under­

stand the necessity of many of the limitations imposed on the feeding

enterprise discussed in Part III.

Climate and Topography

The normal annual precipitation in the Triangle Area ranges

geographically from 10 to 21 inches, with 5 to 13 inches of this

falling from April I td October I. The average annual mean temperature

lies between 40 and 46 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average of 105 to

135 frost-free d a y s . W i t h i n each pf these characteristics, there

is a great deal of variation between years.

Topographically, the Triangle Area is similar to most of the Great

Plains in that it consists primarily of level or gently rolling land

ranging between 2,000 and 4,000 feet in altitude.-^/ •

The influence would be less were it not that this feeding operation
is treated as an enterprise supplementing the established farm.

i/ Bolster, H. G. and Stucky, 1H.. R., Montana's Agriculture, Montana

Agricultural Extension Service, Bulletin 228, Bozeman, Montana,
May, 1945, pp. 7-9.

•2/ Ibid., p. 5.
 — 8 —

Type of Farming

The Triangle Area is one of the largest wheat producing.sections

of Montana. Both winter and spring wheat are grown in abundance, and

the only other cereal produced in significant quantities is barley.

Before acreage restrictions on wheat became effective, comparatively

little barley was grown. However, barley production has increased more

than 475 percent since that time^ and -id: is now one of the major crops

of this area (see Table I). •

TABLE I. total n o n -I r r i g a t e d acres harvested in t h e triangle area

Year Barley Wheatk/

1951 99,800 1,938,900

1952 114,600 2,002,000

1953 118,200 2,001,600

1954 475,000 1,598,800

1955 468,800 1,515,600

1956 430,300 1,383,800

1957 577,200 1,384,400

-------- ik------------

Montana Department qf_Agriculture, Montana Agricultural Statistics,

Montana Department of Agriculture, Helena, Montana, Vol. IV, Decem­
ber, 1952, pp. 47, 49, 51$ Vol. V, December, 1954, pp. 18-21, 26, v
27; and Vol. yi, December 1956, pp. 32-35, 40, 41.

Both spring and winter; excludes. Durum.

 - 9 -

Irrigation plays a very small part in the agriculture of this area.

Only 4 percent of the harvested crop acres is irrigated, and over one

half of this irrigation is located in the southeastern portion of Teton

C o u n t y I n 1954, the average number of acres harvested per farm" was

435, but the average number of cultivated acres is nearly twice this

amount because most farmers in this area summer fallow one half of their

cultivated land each year

Most of the area, with the exception of Fergus and Judith Basin

Counties, possesses glaciated soils ranging from Brown to Chestnut with

a loam or clay-loam texture. There is very little organic matter in

this type of soil, and the lime is close to the surface; thus, there is

little leaching. Small areas of strongly solodized Solonetz soils are

scattered throughout the entire glaciated region. The soils of Fergus

and Judith Basin Counties fall primarily into the Chestnut and Chernozem

3/
groups, i=e., dark brown soils.— '

Type of Feeding

It is impossible to describe a "typical" cattle fattening operation

in the Triangle Area; however some idea can be obtained as to the

l/ Ibid,, VoI. VI, December, 1956, p. 13o

2J Ibid., pp. 98-99.

■2/ For a more specific discussion of the soil types in this area see
the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station's Soil Survey (Recon­
naissance) of Central Montana, Series 1940, No. 9, Bozeman, Montana,
February, 1953, pp. 1-133; and Soil Survey (Reconnaissance) of the
■Northern Plains, Series 1929, No. 21, Bozeman, Montana, 1933, pp. 1-74
 10 -

enterprise organization of many of the operations from information

obtained by interviewing individual feeders. Fifty cattle feeders in

this area were interviewed during the summer of 1956.^/ Of these 50,

only 38 were dryland wheat farmers. The remainder were commercial

feeders, or fed on irrigated farms. The data presented will pertain

only to the 38 feeders and will include only cattle fed during the

winter of 1955-56.

The average number of cattle fed was 67 head, and there was little

variation in numbers between areas. Thirty-seven of the 38 feeders fed

only on a drylot basis.-^ There was a great deal of variation between

areas in the age and sex of cattle fed. In some sections the farmers

were partial to feeding heifers while in other localities they favored

feeding steers. The same difference in views applies to the age of

cattle fed. The percent of operators feeding different groups'of

cattle is shown in Table II.

A majority of the cattle placed on feed were started during Novem-

ber— the average date being November 16. Twenty-five operators fed

cattle they themselves raised, seven purchased them from the sale ring,

four bought directly from ranchers, and two supplemented their own

cattle with purchases from the sale ring.

^ The feeders interviewed were not randomly selected. An attempt

was made to interview the entire population of feeders in this area.

Drylot feeding may be defined as the fattening of cattle in an en­

closed pen without access to pasture during the feeding operation.
 - 11 -

TABLE II. TYPE OF CATTLE FED IN THE TRIANGLE AREA, 1955-1956,

Type of Cattle Fed Percent ef Operators

Steers only 29%

Heifers only 16%

Steers and heifers 55%

Yearlings only 42%

Calves only 34%

Calves and yearlings 11%

Two-year-olds only 5%

Yearlings and two-year-olds ■ 8%

In selling their cattle for slaughter, 23 sold directly to local

grocery stores or slaughter plants, nine used the sale ring, five sold

to order buyers, and one shipped to St, Paul, The average transportation

distance per sale, paid by the seller, was 54 miles (excluding the ship­

ment east).

Most farmers used only two kinds of grain in their ration— either

straight barley (55 percent of the feeders) or some combination of bar­

ley and oats (40 percent). Only 5 percent of the feeders used a cereal

other than the two above. Nearly everyone had the grain steam-rolled
7
with a small amount of molasses mixed in during the rolling process.

Sixty-nine percent of the farmers used all home grown grain, 15 percent
 - 12 -
i'
purchased lfess than one fourth of it, and 15 percent purchased all of

the grain fed.

There was a great deal of variation in the kinds of hay fed.

Sixty-one percent of the feeders included wild hay in their ration,

.

42 percent included oat hay, 33 percent, alfalfa, and 10 percent fed

some sttaw. Very few fed oat Cr alfalfa silage, and 34 percent fed

Stilbestffel,
 PART III

PRE-BUDGET PLANNING

The Planning Process

Unfortunately, too many farmers decide to fatten cattle with very

sketchy plans of how the feeding operation is to be conducted. Feeding

is an extremely complex business, and the intelligent farmer realizes

that a great deal of planning and preparation must precede the actual

feeding operation.

The primary purpose of feeding is to make money, so it is logical

that the first and primary function of planning is to estimate the pro­

fitability of the feeding operation. Before this can be done, the po­

tential feeder must first make several choices which will enable him

to prepare a budget. This budget should include estimates of every ex­

pense involved in,the feeding operation. The areas where choices must

be made are listed below; .

1. Type of feeding 7. Amount of ration to feed

2. Age of cattle 8. When to begin feeding

3. Sex of cattle 9. Length of feeding period

4. Quality of cattle 10. Number to feed

5. Weight of cattle 11. Equipment required

6. Ingredients of ration

A great deal of thought must enter into each of these decisions,

and, in certain areas, partial budgets must be prepared to arrive at

 — 14 -

the best choice. Also, the farmer must estimate what the weight of the

cattle will be at the end of the feeding period. Only after these

steps have been taken can the prospective feeder prepare a realistic

budget of his total feeding operation.

Let us assume the preliminary budget indicated that it would be

financially profitable to feed, the farmer has purchased feeder cattle,

fed them a reasonable length of time, and sold them. Now, he must

again return to the bookwork before he has satisfactorily completed the

entire feeding operation.

After the cattle have been sold for slaughter, the feeder should

not only figure carefully his profit or loss, but he should review his

decisions to determine why he made such a profit or loss. Also, he

should investigate the possibility that, had he chosen different al­

ternatives, he might have made more profit. In other words, he should

find the sources of variation in his costs and returns. From this he

will be better qualified to decide whether or not to feed the following

year, and, if he does, it will help him do so in a more efficient

manner.

In an effort to illustrate this process, a hypothetical cattle

feed|ng operation will be planned. This section (Part III) will con­

tain the processes involved in pre-budget planning, and a budget for

the fattening enterprise will be prepared in Part IV. However, all

planning must be made in reference to a particular farm organization.

Therefore, a description of a hypothetical farm is presented on the

following page.
 - 15 -

The Hypothetical Farm

The farm is located in the Triangle Area, 15 miles from the nearest

town. It is composed of 900 acres, all non-irrigated, and is strictly

a wheat farm with no livestock or pasture. Thirty of the 900 acres

are waste land (farmstead, fences, roads, etc.), leaving 870 acres

available for cultivation. Of this, one-half is summer fallowed each

year, so only 435 acres may be used for the production of cereal grains,

which is the average-number of harvested acres per farm in the Triangle

Area (see page 9).

Assuming this farm had all 435 acres in wheat before acreage al­

lotments were begun, approximately 70 percent, or 305 acres, can now be

planted to wheat. Thus, there are 130 acres remaining to be planted to

some feed grain. What,is planted will be determined by the ration

chosen later in this section.!/

Choices to Be Made

As was stated previously, several decisions must be made prior to

preparation of the final budget. These areas of decision will be dis­

cussed in this section. Alternatives will be developed within each area

and a selection will be made of the one alternative best suited to the

hypothetical farm organization. These choices will be based upon

l/ it is significant to note that a farmer should, before spring

planting of the preceding year, decide what ration he will feed if
conditions are conducive to profitable feeding the following year.
Otherwise, if he plants the wrong kind of grain, he may have to
trade one type of cereal for another to get the ingredients of a
suitable ration.
 — 16 —

secondary data, information from those feeders interviewed, logical

reasoning, or in some cases, by arbitrary assumption. Their.purpose

is to provide a basis for preparation of the final budget.

Type of Feeding

In fattening cattle for slaughter, a farmer may feed his cattle

either in a drylot or on pasture. As the hypothetical farm has no

pasture, only drylot feeding will be considered in the budget.

Another choice to be made is how the cattle will be fed— by hand

or by a self feeder. -A majority of the farmers interviewed fed by

hand; however, some of the most successful practiced self-feeding. The

danger in using the self-feeding method at the beginning of the feeding

period is that the animals may founder, get diarrhea, or go off feed.

Later in the feeding period when the cattle are accustomed to a heavy

ration, they can usually eat as much as desired without any ill-effects.

A combination of the two methods will be used in the hypothetical

feeding operation. The troughs will be filled by hand and the ration

.limited during the first part of the feeding period. Later, when the

cattle have become accustomed to a concentrated diet, a surplus of

grain will be kept in the troughs so they may eat all they desire.

Age of Cattle

Most of the cattle fed at the present time in the Triangle Area

are either calves or yearlings. Several experiments have shown that

one advantage of feeding calves is that they make cheaper gains than do
 - 17 -

yearlings because the food value is utilized for growing instead of

fattening. However, they cost more per pound to buy as feeders, their

gain per day is less, and they must be fed a longer period of time to

reach a desirable f i n i s h A l s o , calves "require more attention in

care and feeding, being more susceptible to inclement weather, diges­

tive disturbances and d i s e a s e . T h i s indicates that it may not be

wise for a beginning feeder to fatten calves until he has had some

feeding experience. Therefore, because the farmer's feeding period

is limited, and because calves are not so easy to feed, yearlings will

be chosen as the age class of cattle to be fed on the hypothetical farm.

Sex of Cattle

Whether heifers or steers are fed will depend upon personal pre­

ference, the availability of feeder cattle in the area, the price

differential between heifers and steers at buying time, and the expected

price differential at selling time. The farmer may choose to feed only

one sex or a mixed lot. AS these variables cannot be weighed in

reference to a hypothetical farm organization, steers will be arbi­

trarily chosen for this feeding operation.

^ Morrison, F. B., Feeds and Feeding, Morrison Publishing Company,

Ithaca, New York, 21st edition, 1951, pp. 799-800.

•2/ Maynard, E. J., Beets and Meat, Great Western Sugar Company, Denver,
Colorado, September, 1950, pp. 30-31.
 18 -

Quality of Cattle

In determining the quality of cattle to buy, a prospective feeder

must first decide the grade he would like his fattened cattle to reach

at selling time. This will depend upon the existing market in the

feeder's locality.

The market for Montana fattened cattle is usually in Montana or

the West Coast. Neither of these markets show a strong demand for

prime cattle, so an insufficient, premium is usually paid for this grade

of c a t t l e . T h u s , in most cases, it would be unwise for the farmer to

feed his cattle with this goal in mind.

Because of this, and because warming up and feeding on a limited

ration were eliminated previously for budgeting purposes, the quality

of the fattened cattle may be narrowed to either choice or good grade.

From this, a low choice will be chosen as the goal for the feeder on

the hypothetical farm. Therefore, he will probably -want to buy a choice

grade feeder. Good grade feeders may be purchased, but they must be fed
2/
longer to reach choice at selling time.— '

This decision to feed to the choice grade should not be interpreted

as a recommendation, because this will depend upon the present and ex­

pected price margins. If choice feeder cattle are selling at a premium-

over good grade feeders, and the farmer feels this premium will not be
------ .. ' r

2/ Grcutt, E. P., Fattening.Montana' Cattle, Montana Agricultural

Extension Service, Bulletin No. 203, Bozeman, Montana, May, 1953,
p. 31. ; . '.

2/ Ibid., p. 31
 - 19 -

so great when he sells his fed cattle, he should buy the good grade -

feeder.A/ But he must not try to feed them to an extremely high degree

of finish. This can only be accomplished through increased feeding costs

that may become excessive.

Weight of Cattle

An important step in planning a feeding operation is the determina­

tion of the weight of the cattle to buy. This is important because a

prospective feeder must also plan the length of the feeding period and

the amount of feed that will be needed. If.the animals are heavy when

they are put on feed, only a short feeding period may be required to

reach the choice grade. Conversely, if they are too light, the feeding

period may extend into the planting season before a choice grade is

reached. This may require the use of man-hours for feeding which are

needed for seeding crops. Therefore, it behooves the farmer to give

serious consideration to the weight at which to purchase the animals.

If choice feeder yearlings are purchased, they should reach the

2/
choice slaughter grade at approximately 930 pounds.— ' So, in deter­

mining the weight at which they should be acquired, the feeder must take

into consideration the daily rate of gain expected (derived from the

type and amount of ration to be fed) and the length of^the feeding

l/ Morrison, F. B., op.cit., p. 842.

2J Iowa State College Staff, Midwest Farm Handbook, Second Edition,

Iowa- State College Press, Ames, Iowa, 1951, p.. 2.
 -.20 - .

period appropriate for his farm operation» Of course, this estimated

buying weight may vary slightly at the time of purchase according to the

weights and prices of feeder cattle available in the area, but a large

deviation from the desired weight should be avoided if possible.

Because of choices and estimates made later in this section, the

desired weight of the cattle at the beginning of the feeding period in

the hypothetical fattening operation will be from 575 to 625 pounds (or

an average of 600 pounds for budgeting purposes).

Ingredients of the Ration

One of the more important factors in determining the financial suc­

cess of a feeding operation is the kind of ration that is used and the

amount of this ration that is fed. Only the ingredients of the ration

will be discussed here, and the amount to be fed at different, intervals

during the fattening period will be discussed under the following

subheading.

The ingredients of the ration may vary from year to year, depending

on the price relationship between the different feeds. Also, they need

not be limited to only those feeds which can be home grown, because it

is not always known at the time of spring planting what ration will be

the best to use during the next winter's feeding operation. If a farmer

can profit by selling his home grown feed and purchasing some other kind

that will fatten his cattle more economically, he should do so.

Because of the large amount of barley being grown in the Triangle

Area, and the need for disposing of it in the most profitable manner,
 - 21 -

barley will usually be a part of the ration? Some farmers claim that

barley is a poor fattening ration; however, "numerous experiments have

shown that fattening cattle will make as rapid gains on ground barley,

fed as the only grain, as on shelled corn.'— / If barley is a part of

the ration it should be cracked or rolled for cattle and not fed

whole or finely ground.to obtain the most economical results.^/

Oats are also grown in abundance in the Triangle Area, so this iq\

another possible cereal to include in the ration. It is especially

valuable during the first part of the feeding period because cattle will

many times adjust to their partial-grain diet better if it contains some

oats. Unlike barley, experiments conducted show that there is no bene­

fit from grinding oats for calves up to one year of age. However,

medium-fine grinding is definitely advantageous for older cattle.

Finely ground oats are of lower feeding value than are whole oats.-^/

Experiments have shown that when straight barley is fed to one

group of cattle all during the feeding period and a similar group is

fed straight oats for the entire period, oats are worth only about 86

percent as much as barley. Barley is somewhat higher in protein content

and total digestible nutrients than are oats.^/ This suggests that

straight oats should not be fed throughout the entire feeding period;

I/ Morrison, F. B., op.cit., p. 515.

Orcutt, E. P., op.cit., p. 14.

3/ Morrison, F. B., op.cit.,. p. 491.

'i/ Ibid., pp. 492, 513.

 22 -

however, a mixture of oats and barley is sometimes superior to feeding

either of the two alone, depending upon the price relationship between

the two cereals. If the price of oats is low relative to the price

of barley, it is worth as much as barley in a mixed grain ration if

it does not exceed approximately 30 percent of the mixture (see Figure 2).

Barley— Cents per Bushel

0 20 40 60 ! 80 100 120 140 160 180
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r

80 100 120
Oats— Cents per Bushel

Figure 2. Scale of Prices of Barley and Oats and Their Relative Values
for Fattening Beef Cattle.a/

^ Schruben, L. W. and Clifton, R. E., Grain Substitution in Feeding

Livestock, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Circular No. 299,
Manhattan, Kansas, July, 1953, pp. 1-5.

As an illustration explaining how to use the scale above, suppose

barley is 70 cents per bushel. Place a straight edge vertically at 70

cents on the line marked barley, and it will intersect the scale for

oats at 45 cents (see dotted line). Therefore, if oats can be pur­

chased at less than 45 cents per bushel, it would be profitable to feed

oats up to 30 percent of the grain ration. If oats are more than 45

cents per bushel, feed straight barley. This, of course, pertains only

after the animals are on full feed.

 - 23 -

Although this is an excellent guide, the feeder should not rely com­

pletely on the price relationship method of determining the ration. Some

cattle tire of a straight barley ration over a long feeding period;

others may bloat if only barley is fed. In these cases it is wise to

mix oats with barley, even if the price is high relative to that of

barley.^/

Regardless of the ration chosen to be fed when the cattle are on

full feed, it is usually advisable to feed a high percentage of oats

at the beginning of the feeding period. Then, as the animals become

accustomed to a heavy diet, the proportion of oats may be gradually de­

creased until the desired proportion of the full-feed ration is

obtained.

In some cases, other grains have been and are being used success­

fully in fattening beef cattle in the Triangle Area, so it should not 1

be inferred that other grains cannot be fed profitably. But because

barley and oat production is especially adapted to this area, and be­

cause 95 percent of the feeders interviewed fed only barley and/or oats,

a detailed discussion of the other grains will not be presented.2/ It

will be assumed that barley and/or oats will comprise the grain ration

on the hypothetical farm. Furthermore, because this feeding operation

is hypothetical, and therefore no realistic price predictions can be

i/ Morrison, F. B., op.cit., p. 515.

2/ For Information pertaining to the value of other grains for fattening

livestock, see Part II of Feeds and Feeding by F. B. Morrison,
op.cit., pp..268-632.
 24 -

made, straight barley will be fed after the cattle have become accustomed

to a fattening ration.

At the beginning of the feeding period, the grain ration will con­

sist of 50 percent oats and 50 percent barley, and the percentage of

oats will be steadily decreased until the animals are on straight barley

in 30 days. Often a partial oat ration appears more appetizing to cattle

I
if they are unaccustomed to concentrates, thus they rriake a better adjust­

ment to their new feeds, and their consumption increases faster than if

they were fed straight barley -from the beginning. Here again, there are

differences in cattle and in feeding operations. Therefore, this de­

cision must also be left to the individual feeder's judgment.

Molasses is often recommended as an important part of any fattening

ration because it serves as an appetizer and has considerable feeding

value if fed in small amounts. Experiments at Colorado showed that one

pound of beet molasses is equal in feeding value to three fourths of a

pound of rolled barley and over one fourth of .a pound of hay if fed

sparingly.— / Because of these nutritive and appetizing qualities, beet

molasses will also be included in the ration.

The protein in barley and oats, as in other cereals, is not of good

quality, although it is somewhat better than corn ^ But from barley

Singleton, H. P., Ensminger, M. E., and Heinemann, W. W., Dried

Molasses-Beet Pulp and Beet Molasses for Fattening Cattle, Washington
Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 469, Pullman, Washing­
ton, September, 1945, pp. 6, 7.

2/ Morrison, F. B . ,.qp.cit., p. 514.

 - 25 -

and oats the cattle can get enough protein to fulfill their requirements.

However, all grains, except yellow corn, have little carotene value

(carotene is the component of plants which can be converted to Vitamin A

in the animal’s body), and there is a definite need for this in a fat­

tening ration. At the present time, there is no known lack of any other

vitamin (other than Vitamin A) in feeding beef cattle.-^/

One of the reasons Vitamin A is needed is that a deficiency some­

times causes excessive watering of the eyes arid".later, serious' injury-to

them. The initial symptom is usually night blindness, although con­

vulsions sometimes occur first. Lack of Vitamin A may also cause

spasms or paralysis; generalized swelling, or edema, known as "anasarca” ;

lack of coordination, resulting in a staggering gait; and susceptibility

2/
to pneumonia and other respiratory disease

Cattle do store carotene in their bodies, and they draw upon this

when fed a ration with a Vitamin A deficiency. How long they can do

this depends upon their body store and their age— calves will show

symptoms quicker than-will older a n i m a l s . H o w e v e r , to derive maximum

gains it is wise to supply a sufficient amount of carotene during the

entire feeding period, because it is impossible to determine the amount

of Vitamin A each animal has. in storage until the damaging symptoms

appear.

i/ Ibid., p p . 140, 786, 788.

^ Ibid., pp. 141, 788.

■2/ Ibid., p. 787.

 - 26 -

The Vitamin A requirement may be satisfied by feeding hay or a con­

centrated Vitamin A supplement. Good quality hay is usually cheaper to

feed than a vitamin supplement, and it supplies more dry matter to the

ration. The latter is important because cattle on a straight grain

ration with an insufficient amount of dry matter may tend to physic or

go off feed, resulting in reduced gains. Several farmers, interviewed

fed straw to supply the necessary dry matter. This is generally not

recommended because all straw is very low in mineral, protein, and Vita­

min A value. If used at all, it should make up a very small percent of

l/
the total ration.-7
For the above reasons hay will be included in the ration for the

hypothetical farm. A choice must also be made between the different

kinds of hay. This choice is influenced by the absence of hay land on

the hypothetical farm, for it can be assumed that the feeder must pur­

chase his entire hay requirement. True, land presently used for cereal

crops could be diverted to the production of hay. But, because of the

small amount of roughage needed for the feeding operation, production

costs per ton would be unusually high, so greater returns could be

derived by raising cereal crops than by raising a small acreage of hay.

At first glance, the Choice of what kind of dry roughage to buy is

extremely complicated because there are hundreds of different'kinds.„

Actually, the choice is not nearly so difficult because transportation

costs eliminate the purchase of hay from a great distance if hay is

V Ibid., pp. 436,437.

 -TI-
available nearby. Thus* the alternatives can be restricted to those

roughages grown in the Triangle Area and surrounding territory. These

are, according to the interviews, alfalfa, oat hay, and native hay (in­

cluding brome and crested wheat grasses).

First, a comparison will be made between alfalfa and oat hay. Al­

though mineral and protein content are important* this comparison will

be made primarily on the basis of Carotene Content because the concen­

trates will supply the necessary amounts of minerals and proteins.

Alfalfa, partly bleached with a moderate amount of green color,

will contain nine to 14 milligrams Of carotene per pound. Cereal hay of

average quality, bleached with some green color, will range from four to

eight milligrams of carotene per pound in content. If both possess a

bright green color, each will have more carotene value, yet alfalfa

will still have twice as much as will oat hay. Also, alfalfa will sup­

ply more than twice as much digestible protein per pound.l / This in­

dicates that for the above nutrients, alfalfa is twice as valuable, by

weight, as oat hay in a fattening ration.

In comparing alfalfa with native hay, the latter has an important

advantage in that it is usually considered less b u l k y H o w e v e r , all

types of native hay common to this area have considerably less carotene

value than does alfalfa. Of these, bromegrass is higher in carotene and

±1 National Research Council, Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Beef

Cattle, Number IV, Washington 25, D. C., December, 1950, pp. 25, 29.

2/ Orcutt, E, P., op.cit., p. 17.

 - 28 -

retains its value better in the later stages of development than do most

of the other grasses,!/ 'In addition, all of the native grasses contain

only about one half of the digestible protein of alfalfa.

Because alfalfa is the cheapest source Of carotene and digestible

protein, it will be used for hay on the hypothetical farm. This, how­

ever, should not necessarily be considered a recommended practice for

two reasons.

First, there is an indication that when both barley and alfalfa

are fed, there is a tendency for the animals to bloat.!/ This has not

been•conclusively proven, but if a farmer's cattle tend to bloat on this

combination, he should feed some other roughage in an attempt to prevent

it.

Secondly, the quality of roughage is more important than the kind

of hay used. Native hay of good quality* i.e. unbleached with a good

green color, may have more carotene value than poor quality alfalfa.

Alfalfa, standing in stacks for one year, will lose 75 to 85 percent of

its Vitamin A value. Baled alfalfa will lose 3' percent of its carotene

content per month during the winter, 6 percent per month during the
3/
fall and spring, and 21 percent per month during the summer.-7 There­

fore, if only a very poor quality of alfalfa is available, the farmer

should feed some other roughage of good quality.

V Morrison, F. B., op.cit,., p. 146.

!/ Orcutt, E= P., op.cit., p. 17,

3/ Ibid., p. 11
 - 29 -

Another component of the ration to be used on the hypothetical farm

I
will be diethylstilbestroI (commonly called stilbestrol). Many experi­

ments have been conducted by agricultural experiment stations and other

research agencies to determine the optimum amount of this hormone to

feed. Results show that each animal on feed should be given approxi­

mately 10 milligrams per day for best results.-^/

Less than one half of the Triangle Area feedlot operators inter­

viewed in 1957 included stilbestrol in the ration. The most common

method of feeding stilbestrol Was orally in combination with a protein

supplement. This is the way in which stilbestrol will be given to the

feeder animals on the hypothetical farm.

With the above ration, the digestible protein, total digestible

nutrients (TON), dry matter, and carotene requirements can be fulfilled.

There has been no positive information indicating the need for

adding trace minerals (cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, etc.) to a

fattening ration in the Triangle Area.^/ Therefore, the only minerals

that may be lacking are sodium, chlorine, calcium, phosphorus, and

iodine.

Because legumes are a part of the ration, there will be no lack of

calcium if three to four pounds of alfalfa.'are fed daily. Grain is. very
_______ ___________

l/ Chappel, C. F., "Feeding Diethylstilbestrol to Beef Cattle,"

Proceedings of the 1956.Montana Nutrition Conference, MOritana State
College, Bozeman, Montana, June, 1956, p. 34.

2/ Ofcuttj Ev. Ps-. Minerals'for Montana Cattle'and Sheep,. Montana \

Agricultural Extension Service,Circular No, 246j.Bozeman, Montana
February,,1953,5ps,7s0
 - 30 -

lew in calcium content, so if little or no legumes are to bn fed, a

calcium supplement would be needed. Also there should be no phosphorus

deficiency in a barley ration because any grain, even if grown on phos­

phorus deficient soil, will provide an ample amount

There is a deficiency of sodium and chlorine in most fattening

rations. However, if ordinary salt is provided, these requirements will

be fulfilled,-^/ Loose salt is usually the best to buy because cattle

will eat more of it than if it is in block form. If it is directly ex­

posed to the weather, however, block salt should be used because there

is less loss. The most satisfactory arrangement is to use loose salt,

provide a covering over it to keep out rain and snow^ and fasten the con­

tainer to a building or stand at a reasonable height to reduce the pos­

sibility of cattle urinating in it,-2/

It has not yet been proven that additional iodine is needed for

feed-lot cattle; however, to add this to the salt is inexpensive and

probably should be done to insure the proper amount of iodine in the

ration,^/ The best source of iodine is commercial iodized salt if_it

contains stabilized iodine. If it does not, long storage or exposure

to the sun and air for several weeks will result in evaporation of the

iodine.

I/ Morrison, F. B., op»cit,, pp, 784, 785,

2/ Maynard, H -J,, ctjo^cJit^Q, p, 64,

3/ Morrison, F,■B', ,• op,cit, p, 783
i/ Orcutt, Bi,'P,:-,;Fattening Montana Cattle, op.cit,, p. 9,
 - 31

An inexpensive source of iodine is potassium iodide. However, it

is recommended that it be mixed with ground rock salt at the rate of one

ounce of potassium iodide to 300 pounds of salt.i/ To mix such a small

amount of iodine with such a large amount of salt is hot only bother­

some but time consuming and difficult to perform. Because of this,

commercial iodized salt with stabilized iodine will be included in the

ration for the hypothetical farm.

This completes the choice of ingredients of a ration for the hy­

pothetical farm. No claim is made that this is the best possible ration

to feed, for there are hundreds of other combinations of feeds. An in­

finite '' amount could be written to include all the possible feeds and

their combinations, but this would be a research study in itself.

Amount of Ration to Feed

If the operation is on a full-feed basis, as is this one, it will

be assumed that the object is to feed the cattle as much as they can ,

eat of the optimally proportioned ingredients. The critical issue

then becomes in what proportion to feed the ingredients to obtain the

most economical gain. The criteria for this decision are: (l) to

provide at least the minimum amounts of the "basic elements" (vitamins,

proteins, minerals,.TDN0s, and dry matter); (2) to feed an appetizing

ration; and (3) to keep the animal otherwise healthy (i.e. prevent

bloat, foundering, diarrhea, etc.).

I/ Orcutt, E. P., Minerals for Montana Cattle and Sheep, op.cit., p. 4.

 32_-

These criteria, however, cannot be considered independently.

Probably the best method is to attempt to fulfill criterion number one

while keeping in mind the other two limitations. In other words, first

determine a certain ratio of ingredients that will supply enough of the

basic elements. Then check this against criteria.two and three using

past feeding experience and/or common knowledge as the basis for com­

parison. Obviously, the planned proportion of ingredients may require

changing after observing the effect of the ration on cattle, but this

does not reduce the need for a precisely planned ration prior to the

beginning of the feeding period.

The provision of minimum amounts of the basic elements can be

planned by using as a guide, published information regarding (I) recom­

mended nutrient allowances for fattening cattle and (2) analysis of the

composition of ration ingredients. Data of this type, which pertain to

•this feeding operation, are presented in Tables III and IV.

Similar information for all feeds can be obtained by a prospective

feeder from several sources, the most common probably being Feeds and

Feeding by Frank B. Morrison, or Recommended Nutrient Allowances for

Beef Cattle, by the National Research Council,

 33 -

TABLE III. RECOMMENDED DAILY NUTRIENT ALLOWANCES FOR FATTENING YEARLING

CATTLEa/

Weight Total
of Dry Digestible Digestible Caro­
Animal Matter Protein Nutrients Calcium Phosphorus tene v
(lbso) (lbs«.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (Mg.)

600 15,0-17.6 1.18-1.32 10.7-12.3 .044 .037 35

700 16.5-19.1 1.36-1.52 12.7-14.3 .044 .040 40
800 17.8-20.4 1.52-1.68 14.1-15.9 .044 .042 45
900 18.9-21.7 1.64-1.82 ■ 15.4-17.2 .044 .044 50
1,000 20.0-23.0 1.71-1.90 16.0-18.0 .044 .044 55
1,100 21.0-24.0 1.76-1.96 16.5-18.5 .044 .044 60

Morrison, F. B . , Feeds and Feeding, Morrison Publishing Company,

Ithaca, New York, 21st edition, 1951, p» 1149« /

TABLE IVo AVERAGE COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS OF F E E D S ^

Total Digest!-- Total '

Dry ble Digestible Cell"- Phos- Caro-
Feedstuff Matter Protein Nutrients cium ■ phorus tene
(%) (%) (%) (*) (%) / mg/lb

Alfalfa hay, all analysis 90.5 10.5 50.3 1.47 0./4 11.4
Alfalfa hay, before bloom 90.5 ^ 13.7 53.4 2.22 CU 33 —
Alfalfa hay, l/lO to
.1/2 bloom 90.5 11.2 51.7 1.2 6 ,/ 0.22 19.4
Alfalfa hay, 3/4 to /
full 'bloom 90.5 10.3 50.1 _/ — 9.0
Alfalfa hay, past bloom 90,„5 9,2 47.6 T— 3.2
Barley, excluding Pacific
Coast 89.4 10.0 77.7 0.09 0.47 ——
Molasses, beet 80.5 4.4 60.8 Oo 08 0.02
Oats, excluding Pacific
Coast 90.2 9.4 ' 70.1 0.09 0.43 —

National Research Council, Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Beef

Cattle, Number IV, Washington 25,''D« C«, December, 1950, pp« 25-27,
 - 34 -

By using Tables III and IV, a trial and error process must be used

to determine how much of each ingredient to feed. This may be accom­

plished as follows $

Step I. Estimate the number of pounds of each ingredient to feed

daily;

Step 2. Multiply the number of pounds of each ingredient by its

corresponding percentage in column I (Total Dry Matter)
of Table IVo

Step 3. Add each of the individual answers arrived at in Step 2 to

obtain the total daily pounds of dry matter each animal
will receive;

Step 4. Compare this result with the estimates opposite the

average weight of the animals being fed (in Table III) to
determine whether the minimum requirements are being met;

Step 5. Determine whether this combination of ingredients will

normally appear appetizing to the animal and produce no
ili-effects (such as bloat, diarrhea, etc.).

The above process must be repeated for all columns in Table IV to

arrive at a satisfactory ratio of ingredients. This method was used

for the hypothetical feeding operation, and the results are presented

in Table V below.
 - 35 -

TABLE V. ESTIMATED AMOUNTS OF RATION INGREDIENTS TO BE FED.

When Pounds Dry

to Fed Matter Protein TDN's Calcium Phosphorus Carotene
Feed Ingredient Daily (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (mgs.)

Barley 1.5 1.34 .150 1.17 „0014 .00705

1st Oats 1.5 1.35 .141 1.05 „0014 „00645 ——

Day Molasses 0.3 .24 .013 .18 „0002 „00006 ——

Alfalfa 17.0 15.39 1.785 8.55 „2499 „04080 193.8

20.3 18.32 2.089 10.95 .2529 „05436 193.8

Barley 2.5 2.24 .250 1.94 „0023 „01175

6th Oats 2.5 2.26 .235 1.75 „0023 .01075 MM

Day Molasses .5 .40 .022 „30 „0004 „00010 MM

Alfalfa 15.0 13.58 1.575 7.55 „2205 „03600 171.0

20.5 18.48 2.082 11.54 „2255 .05860 171.0

Barley 3.5 3.13 .350 2.72 „0032 „01645 MM

Ilth Oats 3.5 3.16 .329 2.45 „0032 „01505 — -

Day Molasses .7 .56 .031 „43 „0006 „00014 —™
Alfalfa 13.0 11.77 1.365 6.54 „1911 .03120 148.2
20.7 18.62 2.075 12.14 .1981 „06284 148.2

Barley 6.00 5.36 .600 4.66 „0054 „02820 —

16th Oats 3.00 2.71 .282 2.10 .0027 „01290 MM

Day Molasses 1.35 1.09 „059 „82 ■ .0011 „00027 MM

Alfalfa 11.00 9.96 1.155 5.53 „1617 „02640 125.4

21.35 19.12 2.096 13.11 .1709 .06777 125.4

Barley 7.30 6.53 „730 5.67 „0066 „03431 ——

21st Oats 3.70 3.34 „348 2.59 „0033 .01591 MM

Day Molasses 1.65 1.33 „073 1.00 „0013 „00033 MM

Alfalfa 9.00 8.15 .945 4.53 „1323 .02160 102.6

21.65 19.35 2.096 13.79 .1435 „07215 102.6

•Barley 8.70 7.78 .870 6.76 „0078 .04089 MM

26th Oats 4.30 3.88 .404 3.01 .0039 „01849

Day Molasses 1.95 1.57 „086 1.19 „0016 „00039 —

Alfalfa 7.00 6.34 „735 • 3.52 „1029 „01680 79.8

21.95 19.57 2.095 ' 14.48 . .1162 „07657 79.8

 — 36 —

TABLE V. (Continued). ESTIMATED AMOUNTS OF RATION INGREDIENTS TO BE FED.

Barley 15.00 13.41 1.500 11.66 „0135 .07050 —

31st Molasses 2.25 1.81 .099 1.37 .0018 „00045

Day Alfalfa 5.00 4.53 .525 2.52 .0735 .01200 57.0
22.25 19.75 2.124 15.55 „0888 ,08295 57.0

Barley 17.00 15.20 1.700 13.21 .0153 „07990

36th Molasses 2,55 2,05 ,„112 1,55 #©9.20 ,00051
Day Alfalfa 4.00 3.62 „420 2.01 .0588 „00960 45.6
23.55 20.87 2.-232 16.7^. .„©761 ..0900L 45.-6

Barley 18.0 16.09 1.800 13.99 .0162 .08460

41st Molasses 2.7 2.17 „119 1.64 .0022 .00054 . ——

Day Alfalfa 4.0 3.62 .420 2.01 .0588 .00960 45.6

24.7 21.88 2.339 17.64 „0772 .09474 45.6

Barley 19.00 16.99 1.900 14.76 .0171 „08930

46th Molasses 2.85 -2.29 „125 1.73 „0023 .00057 ——

Day Alfalfa 4.00 3.62 „420 2.01 „0588 „00960 45.6

25.85 22.90. 2.445 18.50 „0782 „09947 45.6

Barley 20.0 17.88 2.000 15.54 „0180 „09400 MM

51st Molasses 3.0 2.42 „132 1.82 .0024 „00060 M

M..

Alfalfa ■ 4.0 3.62 „420 2.01 .0588 „00960 45.6

27.0 23.92 2.552 19.37 .0792 .10420 45.6

A table similar to that above should be prepared by a prospective

feeder. Here the amounts to be fed are figured for five-day intervals.

This, of course, does not mean that only 2.5 pounds of barley be fed

each day for the first five days and then increased to 3.5 pounds on the

sixth day. The cattle will be fed 2.5 pounds the first day, and the

amount will be increased gradually each day Until they are being fed 3.5

pounds on the sixth day.

It must be kept in mind that the figures in Table V are merely

approximations, and the amounts fed depen^l a great deal upon the reaction
 - 37 -

of the cattle to the feed. Different cattle will react differently to

the same ration, so a feeder must closely observe his cattle, especially

during the first part of the feeding period. When the cattle are first

put on feed, they may tend to overeat; therefore, the feeder must be

careful to place in the feed troughs only the amount of feed he feels

they should eat.

. It was discovered during the interviews that many feeders begin to

“get ahead" of the cattle after they have been on feed approximately

20 days, i.e. more grain is placed in the troughs than they will eat.

This is known as self-feeding, and this method will be used during the

hypothetical feeding operation. From approximately the 20th day to the

end of the feeding period, the cattle will be given all of the grain

and molasses combination they will consume, but the alfalfa will be

limited to four pounds per day. If too much hay is fed, the cattle will

tend to fill up on this and eat less of the concentrates, thereby re­

ducing their rate of gain.

In feeding only four pounds of alfalfa during most of the feeding

period, approximately 45 milligrams of carotene per day are consumed by

the animal. This is somewhat in conflict with Table IV where 50 milli­

grams are recommended for a 900 pound animal. Thus, the cattle will be

lacking about five milligrams of carotene during the last few days of
’
their feeding period. However, as stated on page 25, cattle store caro­

tene in their bodies and can be fed a Vitamin A deficient ration for a

short period of time without adverse effect on their health, so it is

 — 38 —

safe to assume that feeding four pounds of alfalfa during the latter

part of the feeding period is sufficient. ■

The cattle will be supplied all the Salt they wish to eat. Experi­

ments indicate that cattle fed in drylot will consume about two thirds

of a pound of salt per head per month.— / However, some loss is in­

volved when feeding loose salt, so about one pound of salt per head per

month will be supplied.

As stated before, stilbestrol will also be included in the ration.

As the animal already receives an adequate amount of protein from the

grain and hay, the supplement with the lowest protein content should be

used. In the Triangle Area, this is a supplement containing 20 percent

protein and 10 milligrams of stilbestrol per pound. Thus, one pound per

head per day of this will be supplied the cattle in the hypothetical

feeding operation.

Many variations of the amounts of ration ingredients presented in

this sub-section are possible, and many feeders may find success in

feeding amounts other than those suggested. It is noi; proposed that,

in feeding the prescribed amounts, the most economical gain will be

achieved. However, data obtained from interviews indicate that this

ration, fed in the aforementioned amounts, will normally meet the three

criteria outlined at the beginning of this sub-section, resulting in a

profitable feeding operation.

■' " ■ '■ 7

Morrison, F. B., op.cit., p. 783.
 - 39 -

When to Begin Fpedinq

When to begin feeding is another decision'which can be made only by

the individual feeder. Usually, the farmer will find it most convenient

to begin feeding after fall work is completed and to sell the cattle be­

fore spring work begins, because this is the period when his labor is

the least valuable. The exact time the cattle are purchased within this

period, however, will depend upon when the feeder can most economically

buy the kind of cattle he desires. For budgeting purposes it will be

assumed the cattle for the hypothetical feeding operation are purchased

the first of October.

Length of Feeding Period

The decision of when to sell the fattened animal is one of the most

important made by a feeder. It is within this area that some of the

most costly errors are made by both the experienced and inexperienced

feeder.

The decision, of course, cannot be made before the cattle are put

on feed; however, an estimated length of feeding period can and should

be included in the planning. The exact selling date depends on many

factors, including the price of fat cattle, the variable cost of feeding,

and the current rate of gain. Because so many variables are involved, it

is impossible to establish a formula to use in determining the exact

selling date. Each feeder must, as the feeding period progresses, pre­

dict the future price of fat cattle and the further gain to be made by
 - 40 -

the cattle. Then he must compare the profit or loss realized if the

cattle were sold now with the profit or loss to be realized in the

future. To do this, the farmer must have a budget for the feeding

operation and a record of actual expenses incurred to date. Without

these, he cannot hope to make an intelligent choice of the optimum time

to sell.

Because this general description of how to determine the most profit­

able selling date is somewhat vague and confusing, two examples will be

presented to illustrate the use of this procedure. First, however, a

daily rate of gain and a daily variable cost of feeding must be estab­

lished for use in the examples. These are estimated figures for the

hypothetical feeding operation and should not be construed to represent

the average curves for all feeding operations. These estimates are pre­

sented below in graphic form.

2.5 ■
Pounds

2.0 .

1.5 .

1.0 .

0.5 -

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HO 120 130 140 150

Figure 3. An Example of the Daily Rate of Gain Per Animal.

 - 41
Cents

O 20 40 60 80 100 120
Days
Figure 4. An Example of the Daily Variable Feeding Cost Per Animal-

See Appendix B for detailed breakdown.

Using information in the preceding figures, two situations will be

presented to explain the procedure for determining the optimum time to

sell. Basic assumptions in both situations are that the cattle can

reach a choice grade but cannot economically be fed to prime before

slaughter, and that the prices of good grade and choice grade slaughter

cattle, although different, are constant. (This latter assumption is

unrealistic; however, a constant price will serve the purpose for which

it is intended. A fluctuating price would merely complicate the

examples.)

In Example No. I, the price of good grade slaughter cattle is 28

cents per pound, and the price of choice grade is 31 cents per pound.
 — 42 —

Al so, it is assumed that the cattle will reach the choice grade at 930

pounds, which will be on the 130th day of feeding if the gain is as

shown in Figure 3. Thus, the gross income per animal from each day's

feeding can be obtained by multiplying the daily gain per animal by 28

cents for the first 130 days, and by 31 cents for the remainder of the

feeding period. By comparing the daily gross income per animal with the

daily variable cost of feeding per animal, the optimum selling date can

be determined. This is presented in Figure 5 below.

Cents

Daily variable feeding cost per animal

Daily gross income per animal

Figure 5. Example No. I of the Optimum Length of Feeding Period.

From this graph the conclusion can be drawn that, whenever prices

are constant and the daily gross income per animal exceeds the daily

variable cost of feeding per animal after the cattle reach the choice

grade (point A), feeding should continue until the two become equal

(point B) in order to maximize profits, or minimize losses, whichever

 — 43 —

may be the case. If sold before this time, profits from the last few days

of feeding would not be realized. If the cattle are fed after this date,

the daily variable cost exceeds the daily gross income, and unnecessary

losses would be incurred.

In Example No. 2, the price of good grade slaughter cattle is 22

cents per pound, and the price of choice grade is 25 cents per pound.

Here again it is assumed that the cattle will reach choice at 930 pounds,

which will be on the 130th day of feeding, if the gain is as shown in

Figure 3. To compute the gross income per animal from each day's

feeding, multiply the daily gain per animal by 22 cents for the first

130 days, and by 25 cents for the remainder of the feeding period. Then,

as in Example No. I, compare the daily gross income per animal with the

daily variable cost of feeding per animal. This comparison is shown in

Figure 6.

Daily variable feeding costs per animal

Daily gross income per animal

Figure 6. Example No. 2 of the Optimum Length of Feeding Period

 - 44 -

In a situation such as that of Figure 6, the cattle should not be

sold when the daily variable feeding cost equals the daily gross income.

This rule applies only when the daily gross income exceeds the daily

variable cost of feeding after the animals reach the choice grade. When

daily variable cost exceeds daily gross income after reaching choice,

as above, the cattle should be sold immediately upon reaching choice, or

on the 130th day in this instance.

The feeder may ask, "Because the feeding operation will operate at

a loss when daily variable costs exceed the daily gross income, why feed

at all?" This is true where there is no change in the price of the

product, but this demonstrates one important exception. In this instance,

the cattle sell at a higher quality which commands a price premium.

Thus, the initial 600 pounds that were purchased at a price of 2 0 -cents

per pound has a selling price of 25 cents per pound, and this profit

exceeds the loss of adding the 330 pounds of gain during the feeding

period, resulting in a profitable feeding operation.

This rule also applies if the daily variable cost exceeds the daily

gross income throughout the entire feeding period. This is shown in

Figure 7, assuming the price of good grade slaughter cattle is 20 cents

per pound and the price of choice grade is 23 cents per pound. Here,

too, a profit may be realized due to the increase in grade and price per

pound for that higher grade animal.

These examples indicate the general method for determining the op­

timum length of feeding period. A fluctuating price complicates its use

 - 45 -

Daily variable feeding cost per animal-

Daily gross income per animal

Oays .„

Figure.7o Example No. 3 of the Optimum Length of Feeding Period

by placing more emphasis on chance and insight into future prices, but

the basic principles remain the same. If the feeder has prepared a

realistic budget and keeps adequate records on the feeding operation,

this method will be relatively simple to use6 Budgets and records will

not dictate the exact optimum selling date because prices are variable;

but without them, one can only guess at this date, thereby increasing

the possibility of a severe monetary loss.

As stated before, it is essential to estimate the length of feeding

period for budgeting purposes before actually deciding whether or not

it will be profitable to feed. In budgeting for the hypothetical

feeding operation, the rate of gain, daily variable cost, and daily

gross income shown in Figures 3, 4, and 7 will be used.

 — 46 —

Number to Feed

The correct number of cattle to feed can be determined only by each

individual feeder. It is influenced by many factors, but probably the

most important is the amount of money available to the prospective

feeder and the capacity of his existing facilities, if any. A restriction

of somewhat less importance might be the number of non-wheat producing

acres remaining after acreage allotments. This, however, need not be a

definite limiting factor because a farmer who finds he cannot produce

enough feed grain for his planned feeding operation can usually but from

a neighbor.

For this feeding operation, it will be assumed that financing is

not a limiting factor and there are few existing facilities. Therefore, ■

the amount.of feed grain the hypothetical farm's 130 "extra" acres will

(normally) produce will be used as the factor limiting the number of

cattle to feed.

A determination must be made regarding how much grain needed to

fatten an animal-, and how much this 130 acres will produce. In totaling

up the estimates in Table VI of the amount of grain each animal Will con­

sume, it is found that during 130 days each animal will eat approximately

105 pounds of oats and 2,050 pounds of barley. When feeding 100 cattle

or less, the total amount of oats consumed would be relatively small. It

will be assumed.for this feeding operation that it is more economical to

buy the oats than to seed and harvest so few acres of them.
 — 47 —

For the seven-year period, 1950 through 1956, the average yield of

barley per harvested non-irrigated acre in the Triangle Area was 27,1

bushelso-i/ Using this figure, the hypothetical farm would normally

produce 3,510 bushels of barley on its 130 acres. If each animal con­

sumed 2,050 pounds, or approximately 43 bushels in 130 days, this

amount of barley would feed about 80 animals for that length of time,

As was stated before, it is impossible to determine the exact length

of the feeding period before the cattle are put on feed. So, in order

to insure an adequate amount of barley, only 70 cattle will be fed in

this operation. Then there will be enough barley to feed these 70 head

for approximately 145 days, in the event this is found to be the most

economical length of feeding period.

Equipment Required

In drylot feeding an important consideration is the size of the

feedlot, If it is too large, a maximum gain may not be realized be­

cause of excessive exercise, i,e, the cattle may tend to "run off" their

gain. If it is too small, insufficient exercise may result in a lack of

appetite. It is recommended that 100 to 200 square feet be allowed for

each animal in an Unpaved lot,-?/ One hundred and fifty square feet per

animal will be allowed for this operation.

U Montana Department of Agriculture, op.cit,, Vol, IV, pp, 50, 51;

Vol, V, pp. 26, 27; and Vol;, VI, pp. 40., 41.

2/ Mayhard9 Eo Jo Qp oci *fco9 p o 73 o

 — 48 ™

Several different type's of fences may be used to enclose the feed-

lot* For this feeding operation, it will be assumed that two-inch-

thick planks fastened horizontally to wooden posts will be used. On one

side of the feedlot a chute will be constructed for loading cattle into

a truck. The ramp will be removable so the chute can also be used to

hold animals for veterinary treatment.

It is extremely important to consider the slope of the ground before

selecting the site for a feedlot. The ground should slope gradually to

provide adequate drainage, thus keeping the feedlot as dry as possible.

Also, .if over 50 animals are fed, and they vary in quality a great deal

or in sex, it may be wise to divide the feedlot, separating them into

two different pens. This would allow the operator to feed each group

a ration to which it is best s u i t e d B e c a u s e only 70 head will be

fed here, and they will all be choice grade animals of the same sex, only

one feedpen will be used.

Bue to the severe winters in the Triangle Area, some type of shelter

must be provided when feeding cattle during the winter months. This may

be in the form of a windbreak or a shed. E= P. Orcutt states in Fat­

tening Montana Cattle that feedlot sheds are not necessary in the Tri­

angle Area, as a general rule, except, perhaps, when feeding calves. Be­

cause yearlings will be fed on the hypothetical farm, only a windbreak

will be used. It will be a solid one inch thick 'board pahel extending -'

l/ Orcutt, E. P., Fattening Montana Cattle, op.cit., p. 27.

 — 49 —

from the top of the fence to eight feet above the ground-=' on the north

and west sides of the feedlot, as these are the directions of the pre­

vailing winds in the Triangle Area0-^/

Grain troughs and hay mangers are needed, and.it is recommended that

two and one-half linear feet per head of trough space and a similar length

at the hay mangers be allowed.^/ The hay mangers will be along the south

and east sides of the feedlot to facilitate unloading of hay from a truck

by driving on the outside of the fence» The grain troughs will be lo­

cated in the center of the feedlot on each side of a grain storage area.

This area will have a cement floor on which the grain will be piled and

a roof for weather protection. Siding extending down from the roof to

approximately two feet above the feed troughs will partially enclose the

area. One end will be completely enclosed, and large doors will be con­

structed on the other end, allowing a truck to back in for unloading.

Only grain that has been prepared for feeding will be stored in this

area.

A large box is also needed for salt and.bone meal. To minimize the

chance of contamination from the animals’ excreta, this box should be

Black, W. H., Feedlot and Ranch Equipment for Beef Cattle, United
States Department of Agriculture, Farmers’ Bulletin No. 1584,
Washington, D. Co, May, 1940, p. 4.

For a detailed discussion of feedlot sheds see the South Dakota Agri­
cultural Experiment Station's Beef Cattle Housing in the North Cen­
tral. Region of the United States, South Dakota State College,
Bulletin No. 382, Brookings, South Dakota, June, 1946, pp. 5-19; and
Black, W. H., oo.cit.. pp. ‘1-3.

I/ Maynard, E. J., op.cit., p. 73=

 - 50 -

placed on a stand or attached to a building. It may also have a small

roof-type cover above it to protect the contents from rain and snow.

It is very important that cattle on feed be supplied all the clean

water they will drink. A minimum of 10 gallons per head daily should

be available,— / and it will be assumed that the hypothetical farm has a

well and pump which will supply this amount,. If the pump will supply a

large amount of water in a relatively short period of time, only a small

water tank is needed. A rectangular, oval-end tank, 10 feet by two feet

by two feet, with a capacity of approximately 300 gallons will be used

for this feeding operation.

A water heater should also be used in cold weather. Not only is it

necessary to keep the water temperature above freezing, but it should be

heated to remove the chill. If it is n o t , the animal must use high-

priced feed as fuel to heat the water and this proves too costly.^/ A

small oil heater will be used for the hypothetical feeding operation.

Another feedlot installation which is considered a necessity by

many feeders is a set of cattle scales. The following example is used

to illustrate the importance of scales in a feedlot operation.

Suppose 70 head of cattle are on feed and they can be sold cur­

rently as choice for 24 cents per pound liveweight. If they are fed

for three more weeks, it is expected that they can still be sold as

■choice for 24 cents per pound. If it is costing 66 cents per day to feed

~y Morrison, F. B., op.ci't.-,- p. 789.

2/ Orcutt, E. P., Fattening Montana Cattle, op.pit., p. 35.

 - 51

each animal, should they be sold now or fed for three more weeks? Are

they gaining enough to more than offset the feeding costs? Without

scales, few, if any, feeders can intelligently answer this question—

they can only guess.

If the average gain is 2.75 pounds per head per day, the daily in­

come per animal (2.75 x $.24 = $.66) exactly equals the daily feeding

costs, so the animals should be sold immediately. Now, suppose the

feeder estimates the daily gain at 2.80 pounds, but actually, they are

only gaining 2.00 pounds per day. If feeding costs and daily gain re­

main the same, he would lose $3.78 per animal or a total of.$264.60 by

feeding three weeks longer.. This is a substantial loss, and yet the

error in judgment depicted in this example is very small compared to

many of those actually made by feeders. Suppose the cattle were only

gaining one pound per head per day. If feeding costs and daily gain re­

main unchanged, $617.40 would be lost, by feeding 70 head an additional

three weeks.

Thus, a feeder must not only know his feeding costs, but he must

also know how fast his cattle are gaining in order to determine the

correct time to sell. A feeder can only know how fast his cattle are

gaining by weighing them periodically. If-feeding is carried on over

an extended period of time, the money saved through elimination of

erroneous guessing would more than compensate for the cost of the scales.

Therefore, scales will be used on the hypothetical farm, and they will be

located adjacent to the chute for easy handling of the cattle when they
 - 52 -

are to be weighed. The scales will be large enough (nine feet by 18

feet) and located in such a manner that a truck may also be weighed on

them to facilitate correct measurement of the amount of feed consumed

during a predetermined interval.

The stationary equipment for the feedlot has now been described.

Below is one of a great number of plans for a feedlot design (see Figure

8) that is to be the type used in this feeding operation. It is not .

proposed, however, that this is the best feedlot design; only a con­

venient one for this operation. It is recommended that each farmer

choose the design which is best suited to his particular feeding

operation.

Previously it was mentioned that neither barley nor oats should be

fed whole to yearlings; thus it must be ground or rolled. Insufficient

data exist to compare properly the value of ground grain with that

having been rolled, so the choice is left to the decision of the farmer.

Rolled grain will be used in this feeding operation because nearly all

farmers interviewed used it.

There is also the choice between steam and dry rolling. Again there

is insufficient data to make a reliable comparison between the two

methods, so they will be considered as equal in value.

If a farmer plans to feed each winter, it will usually be profitable

for him to buy his own rolling mill. For example, the prevailing charge

for rolling grain in the Triangle Area.was 15 cents per hundredweight.

According to previous feed estimates, a total of approximately 174,020

 53 -

122'

Windbreak Z

Grain Troughs
+ I
100 ' V
t '
Grain Storage Sheds 10’
I
16’

Hay Storage Area

Grain Troughs

90’

Water Tank

Hay Manger

Hay Storage Area

l/8" = 3 ’

++++ Gates

Figure 8. Feedlot Design for Hypothetical Feeding Operation.

pounds of barley, oats, and molasses will be consumed in this feeding

operation. The cost of getting this rolled would be about $261.00,

excluding the cost of transportation to and from town. A dry rolling

 - 54 -

mill can be_ purchased for approximately $550.00. Little doubt remains

that it would be wise for a farmer to purchase his own rolling mill, so

one will be bought for use in the hypothetical feeding operation.

A truck will be needed to haul grain and hay; however, it will be

assumed that the hypothetical farm already has a truck. Also a tractor

and manure loader attachment are necessary to clean the feedlot of manure

and dirty bedding. Again it is reasonable to assume that the typical

wheat farm has a tractor,but probably not a loader. Therefore, one

must be purchased for the feeding operation.

Bins are needed to store the grain which will be fed to the cattle.

However, most wheat farms will have enough existing bins to store the

amount of grain needed for the feeding operation, so additional bins

will not be necessary.

The areas where choices must be made by a prospective feeder before

a budget can be prepared have now been discussed. The decisions made

within these areas are extremely important, for they are the founda-v

tion upon which a feeder makes the final decision of whether or not to

feed. If these choices are made in haste without a thorough study of

the influencing factors involved, only good fortune can produce a

profitable feeding enterprise; and good fortune cannot be relied upon.

 PART XV

BUDGET FOR A FEEDING OPERATION

Using the choices made in Part III, a budget can now be prepared

for the hypothetical feeding operation. First, however, several de­

cisions must be made to provide a basis from which the budget will be

prepared.

Budget Decisions

Remuneration for the operator's labor will not be included;in the

expenses because it is assumed he has no other income-producing

alternatives,.

Interest on the amount of investment will be 6 percent, and

straight-line depreciation will be used over the estimated life of the

item. Depreciation and interest on the truck, tractor, and grain bins

will not be charged to this operation because they are primarily used

in the ndrmal operation of a wheat farm. All other equipment and fa­

cilities, including the manure loader attachment for the tractor, will

be charged to the feeding enterprise at the aforementioned rates.

It is assumed the farmer uses only his own labor to feed the cattle

and ..build the chute, feed pen, grain troughs, hay mangers, and all of -

the grain storage shed except the concrete floor. The cost of pouring

the concrete floor, digging the scale pit? and installing the scales will

be included in the expenses.

 - 56 -

Twenty cents per pound will be paid for the cattle and this will in

elude delivery to the farm. Assuming the selling price will exclude de­

livery, transportation of the cattle is not the farmer's responsibility,

so no stockrack is needed for the truck.

The Budget

Cost estimates used in the budget below will be either from (I) in­

formation obtained from secondary sources, (2) quotations from business

firms, or (3) interviews with feeders.

Expenses:

• Cattle, 70 head x 600 lbs. x $.20 $8,400.00

Feed -
BarleySr 2990 bu. @ $l.ll/bu. $3,318.90
OatsS/ 230 bu. @ $.72/bu. 165.60
Molasses- 331 lbs. @ $4.00/cwt. 13.24
Alfalfa 26 tons @ $25.00/ton 650.00
Stilbestrol 9100 lbs. @ $85.00/ton 386.75
Salt 300 lbs. @ $2.10/cwt. 6.30 4,540,79
Death Lossb/ .21% of $8,400.00 17,64
Miscellaneousc/ $.26 per 100# gain 60.06
Operating -
Tank Heater 1300 hrs. @ $.0l/hr. 13.00
Truck 440 mi. @ $.08/mi. 35.20
Tractor 50 hrs. @ $1.00/hr. 50.00 98.20
Interest ,
Feedpen, Shed, Equipments/ - $6265.00
@ 6% for one year 375.90
Feede/ $4541.00 6% for 130 days 98.39
Cattle $8400 @ 6% for 130 days , 182.00
Operating costsf/ $99 @ 6% for
65 days '1.07 657.36
Depreciation^
Fence, Windbreak, Chute, Hay Mangers 36.98
Grain Troughs 25.50
Grain Shed 46.17
Salt Box .50
Scales 178.83
Water Tank 4.20
 - 57 -

Depreciation (continued)
Water Heater 5.80
Rolling Mill 55.00
Manure Loader 32.00
Paint".. 65.07 450.05
Total Expenses $14,224.10

V National average support prices for barley and oats for 1950 through
1956, Agricultural Marketing Service, The Feed Situation, Washington,
D. C., July 30, 1956, p. 18.

V Department of Agricultural Economics, Nineteenth Annual Report of

Feeder Cattle, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, December,
1957, p. 18.

e/ IncludOs Veterinary expenses, trips to purchase cattle, etc.,

Mueller,.A. G . , and Henry, B. A . , Detailed Cost Reportifor Northern
Illinois, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, March, 1958,.
p. 24.

d/ See Appendix C for detailed breakdown of total cost of feedpen, shed,

and equipment.

e/ Amount of investment estimated assuming all feed was purchased (or

could have been sold) prior to beginning of the feeding operation.

f/ Assuming equal expenses for each day of feeding, interest was

figured for only one half of the feeding period.

a/ See Appendix D for calculation of depreciation.

The total annual expenses for the feeding operation, including the

purchase price of the cattle, are estimated to be $14,224.10, or $203.20

per animal. According to Figure 3 and Appendix A, if the cattle are

sold on the 130th day of feeding as planned, they have gained 332.5

pounds per head; thus averaging 932.5 pounds when sold. By dividing

$203.20 by 932.5, it is found that the cattle must be sold for 21.8 cents

(or a margin of 1.8 cents) per pound to break even financially.

 - 58 - .

The necessary planning involved in making the decision of whether

or not to feed has now been illustrated— except for one step. Now that

the feeder knows what the selling price must be to break even financially,

he must predict the future price of slaughter cattle. This is the most

difficult aspect of all the planning, for the information on which to

base this prediction is scant. Studying the past and present cattle

markets will be a great help, yet much depends upon chance. Possibly

the most practical solution is to feed year after year, and if the farmer

competes favorably with other feeders, he will show a profit in the long

run. And he who intelligently budgets for his feeding operation will

compete favorably where that possibility exists.

 PART V

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this thesis .is to provide a guide which dryland

wheat farmers may use in determining the profitability of fattening

cattle during the winter months as a supplementary enterprise. The

guide is specifically for the use of farmers in the Triangle Area of

Montana, as it is intended that the hypothetical feeding operation be

somewhat typical of a feeding operation in this area. It is not, how­

ever, intended that the farmer copy his fattening operation after the

one illustrated here.

It is conceivable that a farmer may need only a one cent margin or

less to make profit if he buys his feed and equipment wisely, or if he

has much of the required equipment already on hand. Also, a ration

superior to the one used here may be found by the farmer to further re­

duce costs. This should be used only as a guide in illustrating the

basic decisions that must be made and the budget outline that may be
'' ' 11:,
followed. . -u i m

This information will be most helpful to the beginning feeder, but

it does not embrace all aspects of feeding. A beginning feeder should

also talk with experienced feeders in his locality, send for infor­

mation on feeding from the State Experiment Station, and take any other

steps necessary to gain more knowledge of the feeding business.

Having gained as much information as is necessary properly to con­

duct a feeding operation, the feeder can then proceed to plan for the
 - 60 -

various items of expense shown in the budget of the hypothetical feedlot

operation that was described in Part I V .

Following the steps enumerated above will permit an individual to

proceed in an orderly manner which makes him take account of a number of

important items that might otherwise be ignored.

It is sincerely hoped that this thesis will convince the beginning

feeder (and possibly others who have no formal plan of their operation)

of the need for planning and that it can serve as a useful tool for him

and his more progressive contemporaries who already realize that profits

and business planning are inseparable.

j
APPENDIX
 — 62 —

APPENDIX A. RATE OF GAIN PER ANIMAL

Day of Average Average Gain Cumulative

Feeding Daily Difference for Ten for Ten Total
Period Gain in Gain Day Period Day Period^ Gain

.0 .. .75
'.30 .900. 9.00
IOth 1.05 9.00
1.250 12.50
O

■ 20th 1,45 21.50

.50 1.700 17.00
30th 1.95 38.50
.60 2.250 22.50
40th 2.55 61.00
.45 2.775 27.75
50th 3.00 88.75
.25 3.125 31.25
60th 3.25 120.00
.10 3.300 33.00
70th 3.35 153.00
-.05 3.325 33.25
80th 3.30 1,86.25
- -i“H
O

3.250 32.50
I

90th 3.2Q 218.75

-.15 3.125 31.25°
IpOth 3,05 250.00
a

2.950 24.50
r

IlOth 2.85 279.50

CD
CM

2.750 27.50
I

120th 2.65 307.00

O

25.50
CM

2.550
r

130th 2.45 332.50

— *15 2.375 23.75
140th 2.30 356.25 .
-.15 2.225 22.25
150 th 2.15 378.50
 — 63 —

APPENDIX B. VARIABLE FEEDING COST PER ANIMAL.

Item"Of Cost of Specified Day

Expense 1st Ilth 21st 31st 41st 51st 61 st-150th

Feecti/ _ .
BarleyY- $.0347 $.0809 $.1686 $.3465 $.4158 $.4389 $.4620
.Oats£/ , .0337 .0787 .0833
MolassesY . :0120 .0280 .Q&60 .0900 .1080 .1140 .1200
.2125 .1625 .1125 .0625 .0500 .0500 ..0500
' Alfalfa®/ ,
StilbastrolZ/ .0425 .0425 .0425 .0425 .0425 .0425 .0425
Salts/ ' . .0007 .0007 .0007 .0007 .0007 .0007 .0007
Operating Exp.Y .0070 .0070 .0070 .0070 .0070 .0070 .0070
InterestY .0217 .0217 .0217 .0217 .0217 .0217 .0217

Total $.3648 $.4220 $.5023 $.5709 $.6457 $.6748 $.7039

Y See Table VI for amount of ingredient fed.

Y Figured at $1.11 per bushel or $.0231 per pound.

Y Figured at $.'72 per bushel or $.0225 per pound,.

Y Figured at $4.00 per cwt. or $.04 per pound.

Y Figured at $25.00 per ton or $.0125 per pound.

Y Figured at $85.00 per ton or $.0425 per pound.

Y Figured at $2.10, per cwt. or $.0210 per pound.

Y Figured straight-line on all expenses for tractor and tank heater,

but only on 15 miles for truck. For further information refer to
Part IM)} The Budget.

Y Figured at 6 percent on investment in cattle only.

 — 64 —

APPENDIX C. COST OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES.

Fence, Windbreak, "Chute, Hay Mangers:

Posts: 7' x 4-5* 47 posts @ $1.30/post $'>61.10
8' x 4-5" 11 posts @ $1.40/post 15.40
10* x 4-6" 17 posts @ $1.60/po$t 27.20
Paneling: I x 10 (#2 & 3) 938 bd. ft. $130/
1000 121.94
2 x 4 (#2 & 3) 68 bd. ft. @ $130/
1000 8.84
2 x 6 (#2 & 3) 964 bd. ft @ $130/
1000 125.32
Nails 10.00
Total $ 369.80

Grain Troughs:
2 x 4 (#2 & 3) 206 bd. ft. @ $130/1000 .. . $ 26.78
2 x 6 (#2 & 3) 500 bd. ft. @ $130/1000 .. 65.00
2 x 12 (#1) 1080 bd. ft. @ $170/l000 183.60
4 x 4 (#1) 216 bd. ft.@ $170/1000 36.72 . ,
"Bolts (5|-" x5/8") 352@ $ . 2 0 ea. 70.40 ■
Total $ 382.50

Grain Shed:
I x 8 (Utility) 1104 bd. ft. @ $90/1000 ■ $ 99.36
1 x 10 (#2 & 3.) 976 bd. ft. @ $130/1000 126.88
2 x 4 (#2 & 3) 337 bd. ft. @ $130/l000 43.81
4 x 4 (#1) 214 bd. ft. @ $170/1000 36.38
Shingles (#167 Asphalt) & Roof Edge 1104 sq. ft. 99',go
Felt 1104 sq. ft. 12.00
Concrete 17 cu. yds. @ $15/cu. yd. 255.00
Nails 20.00
692.43

Salt Box:
2 x 6 (#2 & 3) 19 bd. ft. @ $130/1000 • $ 2.47
Total 2.47

Scales:
Frame $1,236.50
Rack: Metal 270.50
Lumbers 2 x 6 (#2 & 3) 252 bd. ft. @
$130/1000 32.76
2 x12 (#1) 216 bd/ft. @ $170/1000 36.72
Pit, Concrete &Installation 2,000.00
Total $3,576.48
 - 65 -

APPENDIX C. COST OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES (Continued).

Water Tank, 2 ’ x 2 ’ x 10° $ 42.00

Tank Heater $ 29.00

Rolling Mill. $ 556.00

Manure Loader $ 320..d0

Paints (Two Coats) 42 gals. @ $7.15/gal. $ 300.30

^-.
^ i
K-:
Grand Total Cost ' $6
.', 1- .' '
,
-I . ;'
 - 66 -
/
APPENDIX D. DEPRECIATION' SCHEDULE —

Total Estimated Cost Per

Item Cost Life. Year

Fence, Windbreak, Chute, Hay

Mangers_ $ 369.80 10 yrs. $ 36.98

Grain Troughs 382.50 15 yrs. 25.50

Grain Shed 692.43 15 yrs. 46.17

Salt Box 2.47 5 yrs. .50

Scales 3,576.48 20 yrs. i!78.83

Water Tank 42.00 10 yrs. 4.20

Water Heater 29.00 5 yrs. 5.80

Rolling Mill 550.00 10 yrs. 55.00

Manure Loader 320.00 10 yrs. 32.00

Paint 300.30 3 yrs.-^/ 65.07

V One coat of paint is applied every three years; thus, for the cost
per year, the life of the first coat is estimated at 10 years and
the second coat at three years.
 _____ .BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agricultural Marketing Service, the Feed Situation^ Washington, D» C.,

July 30, 1956.

Black, W. H., Feedlot and Ranch Equipment ,for Beef Cattle, United State.s
Department of Agriculture, Farmers* Bulletin No. 1584, Washington,
D. C., May, 1940.

Bolster, H. G . $ and Stucky, H. R., Montana's Agriculture, Montana Agri­

cultural Extension Service, Bulletin No. 288, Bozeman, Montana,
May, 1945.

Ohappel, C. F., "Feeding Diethylstilbestrol to Beef Cattle," Proceedings

of the 1956 Montana Nutrition Conference, Montana State College,
Bozeman, Montana, June, 1956.

Department of Agricultural Economics, Nineteenth Annual Report of Feeder,

Cattle, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, December, 1957.

Iowa State College Staff, Midwest Farm Handbook, Second Edition, Iowa
State College Press, Ames, Iowa, 1957.

Maynard, E. J., Beets and Meat, Great Western Sugar Company, Denver,
Colorado, September, 1950,

Montana Department of Agriculture, Montana Agricultural Statistics,

Volumes IV, V, and VI, Montana Department of Agriculture, Helena,
Montana, December 1952, 1954, and 1956.

Morrison, F. B., Feeds and Feeding, 21st Edition, Morrison Publishing

Company, Ithaca, New York, 1951.

Mueller, A. G. and Henry, B. A., Detailed ,Cost. Report for Northern

Illinois, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, March, 1958.

National Research Council, Recommended Nutrient Allowances for..Beef

Cattle, Number IV, Washington 25, D. C,, December, 1950.

Orcutt, Bi P., Fattening Montana Cattle, Montana Agricultural Extension

Service, Bulletin No. 203, Bozeman, Montana, May, 1953.

Orcutt, E. P., Minerals..for Montana Cattle,and. Sheep, Montana Agri­

cultural Extension Service,' Circular NO. 246, Bozeman, Montana,
February, 1953.
 - 68 -

Schruben, L.W., and_C1 ifto.n, R. E., Grain Substitution in Feeding

Livestock, Agricultural Experiment Station, Circular No. 299,
Manhattan, Kansas, July, 1953.

Singleton, H. P,,Ensminger, M. E., and Heinemann, W. W., Dried Molasses-

Beet Pulp and Beet Molasses for Fattening Cattle, Washington Agri­
cultural Experiment Station, Pullman, Washington, September, 1945.

South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Beef Cattle Housing in

the North Central Region of the United States, South Dakota State
College, Bulletin No.. 382, Brookings, South Dakota, June 1946.
MONTAU. ____

' ' uuI2806 3

-.V c